Was Jesus God?

I think we are understanding intelligence in a different way. There is a certain intelligence that can be used to create tools and primitive communication. There is another intelligence that questions why things are the way they are, creates complex things, and develop languages. Are there any other animals able to do that?

Quote: FrGamble

I think we are understanding intelligence in a different way. There is a certain intelligence that can be used to create tools and primitive communication. There is another intelligence that questions why things are the way they are, creates complex things, and develop languages. Are there any other animals able to do that?

We can debate this about animals.

We cannot debate this about Neanderthals.

Quote: FrGamble

Dalex those were excellent and helpful links thank you very much.

I am glad you appreciated them.

Quote:

In this interesting discussion I first want to say that again I think it quite amazing that Scripture, while not a scientific textbook, seems to be so far ahead of its time in the general ideas, not the details, that modern science points to today.

There are many other ancient texts from other cultures which put forth ideas and concepts that we now believe to be true. if enough stuff is written down, it is easy to pick and choose the ones that appeared to be ahead of their time. I suspect at the time that these things were written, though, they had no evidence to back the ideas and it just turns out that they were correct. At least, as far as we know now.

Quote:

As intelligence does not evolve

Not true. Intelligence does evolve. It can even be demonstrated today with the selective breeding of dogs. Also intelligence has been shown to be a (not the only) successful survival strategy. When used as a survival strategy, the more intelligent survive, and have more intelligent offspring.

Quote:

Of this population Adam and Eve receive the first human souls.

this is based completely on your belief that there are souls, and that adam and eve were singular people who received these souls from god, and that these souls are then in turn passed/granted to their descendants. This is another area where there is and can not be any scientific proof, and it is 100% a matter of faith.

Quote:

As the rules of physics seem to break down at the horizon of the Big Bang the laws we know so well about incest and what will amount to bestiality break down as well at this point

pure conjecture, false equivalence.

Quote:

Sin has entered into the world and humanoids without souls but with human bodies can be as tempting as any other or can become concubines to true human beings. There is also the possibility of violence and either taking either by force. There is also the reality of incest at this time before the law of God forbids it and before its disastrous consequences we experience today.

Here is an example where there are clearly rules stated about incest, yet when it comes to polygamy, the "rule" is based on the example of Adam and Eve, being the only two people in the world (apparently) being married singularly to each other.

Quote:

Every human being with a soul that has a child, even if it is only one member of the partner passes on Original Sin and an immortal soul and the human intelligence that goes with it. Eventually as science shows us these non rational humans die off or through interbreeding are all replaced with humans with souls and original sin.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here - that there are humans without a soul, and these soulless humans also have no original sin? If this is true, then science also shows us that if these people only bred with each other, if your notion of how souls are inherited is true, then none of their descendants would have souls or original sin either.

Quote: FrGamble

I think we are understanding intelligence in a different way. There is a certain intelligence that can be used to create tools and primitive communication. There is another intelligence that questions why things are the way they are, creates complex things, and develop languages. Are there any other animals able to do that?

Otters use tools. Dolphins recognize themselves in the mirror. Chimpanzees can learn sign language and communicate with us. Other marine mammals, such as whales, do communicate verbally - is that a language?

Quote: Dalex64

Not true. Intelligence does evolve. It can even be demonstrated today with the selective breeding of dogs.

Like your comments about rudimentary language we are talking about a different level of intelligence.

Quote:

When used as a survival strategy, the more intelligent survive, and have more intelligent offspring.

This is true.

Quote:

this is based completely on your belief that there are souls, and that adam and eve were singular people who received these souls from god, and that these souls are then in turn passed/granted to their descendants. This is another area where there is and can not be any scientific proof, and it is 100% a matter of faith.

This is also true, but helps explain why human beings are so different than the rest of the living world.

Quote:

pure conjecture, false equivalence.

True, just an analogy I thought Nareed would appreciate.

Quote:

Here is an example where there are clearly rules stated about incest, yet when it comes to polygamy, the "rule" is based on the example of Adam and Eve, being the only two people in the world (apparently) being married singularly to each other.

That fact that Jesus and St. Paul both use this example when there are a lot more human beings around to marry is an indication that in the eyes of God marriage is as it was originally intended to be, one man and one woman. You can also look at natural law and common sense to know that polygamy is a wrong.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here - that there are humans without a soul, and these soulless humans also have no original sin? If this is true, then science also shows us that if these people only bred with each other, if your notion of how souls are inherited is true, then none of their descendants would have souls or original sin either.

A soul would not change the species or reproductive process of humans with or without a soul. This coupled with the fall could lead to many different ways in which both would interbreed and if any partner had a soul than both the soul and original sin would be passed to the children.

The whole edifice falls apart on two simple facts:

1) Neanderthals were every bit as human as we are. They buried their dead, which no animals do, and they arranged graves with personal items for the deceased. They also made tools and clothing.

2) A new species doesn't emerge as completely new, but rather as a close relation of existing ones. And will carry many of the recessive genes of their direct predecessors. So there's no point where it's genetically "safe" to engage in widespread incest. There may not be a choice, and certainly paleolithic people had no understanding of this. So they 'd have contented with things like malformations, genetic diseases and such. Maybe that's why life expectancy was very low.

Quote: FrGamble

A soul would not change the species or reproductive process of humans with or without a soul. This coupled with the fall could lead to many different ways in which both would interbreed and if any partner had a soul than both the soul and original sin would be passed to the children.

You can not know what affect a soul, if it exists, has on a species, since at no time in recorded history is there any evidence of what our species was like without one.

Just as there are many examples of slavery in the bible, and how it was an accepted practice and not forbidden, starting in the book of genesis,
So was poligamy a normal, accepted, and not forbidden practice until the Romans before the church and then the church banned it.
Here is a collection of them: http://www.godrules.net/articles/polygamy.htm

Now, it is a bit too much for me to cut and paste, but Jesus in the book of Matthew, chapter 25, is telling a story about a bridegroom and his 10 virgin brides.

Seeing as the book of Matthew was written some decades after the life of Jesus, this story appears to contradict both Roman and early church law. It also gives weight to the position that when they were talking about adam and eve being one flesh, that this was all they were talking about, not that it is the only true prototype for a marriage.

I'm not talking about what we think is a good idea or not, or what we were naturally designed for or not (though I think we were naturally designed to impregnate as many different women as possible)

What I'm talking about is how poligamy was as accepted and not forbidden as slavery was accepted and not forbidden.

I am not counting, but you mention Jesus and a couple of apostles talking about adam and eve, against what, over a dozen examples of poligamy in the old and new testament, including a story from Jesus himself?

And still, it is not forbidden, like incest, or the things forbidden by the ten commandments, or that huge list of things in leviticus that people don't pay much attention to, unless it advances their agenda.

Quote: Dalex64

Jesus in the book of Matthew, chapter 25, is telling a story about a bridegroom and his 10 virgin brides.

The NT is full of embarrassing and silly
stories, just ignore them. You force FrG
to put on his dancing shoes and madly
tap dance his way around yet another
NT conundrum.

Quote: Dalex64

And still, it is not forbidden, like incest, or the things forbidden by the ten commandments, or that huge list of things in leviticus that people don't pay much attention to, unless it advances their agenda.

I always find it hilarious when conservatives wax outrageously at the desire of Islamists to adopt the practices of 7th century desert nomads. They're not wrong, but they themselves want to adopt the practices of much older desert nomads.

A book, fictional or not, cannot help but be a product of its time. Although rarely a book will be ahead of its time, and more often it will be behind its times (see above). The Bible is a product of its time. It reflects the practices, prejudices, preferences, and so on of the people who wrote it. Calling it "holy," or claiming it was "inspired" by some deity, or that it's a deity's "inerrant word," merely makes believers prisoner of mindsets the world has long since left behind.